On 2/17/2015 8:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

On 02/16/2015 11:35 PM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

On 02/16/2015 03:29 PM, Baxter wrote:

or they will have to tax US taxpayers a second time for the
same purpose to get the money or a combination of both.

No, it is not "second time". They should have levied a tax for
whatever it was they spent those borrowed dollars on. OR they
could have borrowed that money from a third party to begin with.

We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what
should have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to
a contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he
comes back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian
vacation, but all you have to do is give him some more cash and
he'll get right with it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.

Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money
from somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him
more cash, and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some
sort of sucker who would give the contractor more money, but in the
Real World, real people call their lawyers.

A more apt analogy would be the contractor going to my kids and
demanding they replace the money he had already spent.


And the same legal situation holds - the contractor is still responsible.
You can use a bank anology too - SS puts surplus funds into the bank, the
bank MUST allow SS to withdraw those funds when it needs/wants to.

Do you really believe that the government has surplus funds to put into
SS? Federal taxes and SS taxes are paid to the government with one
check. The money actually goes to where ever it is needed the most but
owes countless debtors including the SS division. There is no surplus
when your owe more than your income.


I think it is pretty common knowledge that the government prints extra
money to pay its debts, umteen trillion now, and as a result we see the
dollar buy less and less.

On 2/17/2015 7:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/17/2015 12:35 AM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in


We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what should
have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to a
contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he comes
back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian vacation, but
all you have to do is give him some more cash and he'll get right with
it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.

Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money from
somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him more
cash,
and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some sort of sucker
who would give the contractor more money, but in the Real World, real
people call their lawyers.

Again your ignorance of the facts, and the actual law, is showing.

As I clearly stated earlier: by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in
'Flemming v. Nestor', SCOTUS clearly states, among other things with
regard to SS, that ***there is no contractual agreement between taxpayer
and government***.


Because the government operates "above the law" it does not need no
stink'n contract.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:59:58 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/17/2015 8:46 AM, Baxter wrote:

And the same legal situation holds - the contractor is still responsible.
You can use a bank anology too - SS puts surplus funds into the bank, the
bank MUST allow SS to withdraw those funds when it needs/wants to.

Do you really believe that the government has surplus funds to put into
SS? Federal taxes and SS taxes are paid to the government with one
check. The money actually goes to where ever it is needed the most but
owes countless debtors including the SS division. There is no surplus
when your owe more than your income.


I think it is pretty common knowledge that the government prints extra
money to pay its debts, umteen trillion now, and as a result we see the
dollar buy less and less.

The problem is that through all the smoke and mirrors bookkeeping, SS
trust funds have been used to offset the deficit spending. So if you
remove SS fund from the equation, you are now more indebt being an
American.

On 2/17/2015 9:16 AM, Markem wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:59:58 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/17/2015 8:46 AM, Baxter wrote:

And the same legal situation holds - the contractor is still responsible.
You can use a bank anology too - SS puts surplus funds into the bank, the
bank MUST allow SS to withdraw those funds when it needs/wants to.

Do you really believe that the government has surplus funds to put into
SS? Federal taxes and SS taxes are paid to the government with one
check. The money actually goes to where ever it is needed the most but
owes countless debtors including the SS division. There is no surplus
when your owe more than your income.


I think it is pretty common knowledge that the government prints extra
money to pay its debts, umteen trillion now, and as a result we see the
dollar buy less and less.

The problem is that through all the smoke and mirrors bookkeeping, SS
trust funds have been used to offset the deficit spending. So if you
remove SS fund from the equation, you are now more indebt being an
American.


Exactly, smoke and mirrors.

"Just Wondering" wrote:

Require every EBT card recipient to show up for work -- some work,
ANY work -- picking up litter, mowing lawns, painting fences,
pulling weeds, digging holes and filling them back up, babysitting
the kids of those who are out pulling weeds, supervising the litter
pickers. Can't do physical labor? Sit in your wheelchair holding
up a "People Working" sign by those who are moving rocks for their
EBT cards. We can exempt the truly disabled. Want a $300 EBT card?
Put in 40 hours of work first. Don't like it? Then get off your
butt and find a real job.
-------------------------------------------------------
Looks like you have got at least one politican who shares your point
of view.

http://tinyurl.com/qyeepas


Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

How many hundreds of thousands of people who paid into SS all their
working
lives only to die from tobacco related diseases just a couple of
years
before
they could start collecting benefits?

All those funds just stay in the pot.
---------------------------------------------------
"Baxter" wrote:

Nope. Whatever is in that pot gets paid out - just like a poker pot
gets
paid out to the winner (survivors), even though some players fold
(die).
There is no account for individuals.
-----------------------------------------------------
Agreed there is no account for individuals per se.

Think you misunderstood the intent of my comment.

Lew

"Just Wondering" wrote:

Require every EBT card recipient to show up for work -- some work,
ANY work -- picking up litter, mowing lawns, painting fences,
pulling weeds, digging holes and filling them back up, babysitting
the kids of those who are out pulling weeds, supervising the litter
pickers. Can't do physical labor? Sit in your wheelchair holding
up a "People Working" sign by those who are moving rocks for their
EBT cards. We can exempt the truly disabled. Want a $300 EBT card?
Put in 40 hours of work first. Don't like it? Then get off your
butt and find a real job.
-------------------------------------------------------

You'll never see it for the same reason you don't see prison road gangs
[think cool Hand Luke] anymore.
You put all those people to work in that manner and you put a bunch of
contactors out of business. And, those contractors that get rich off
government contracts make healthy contributions to re-election campaigns.

Dave in SoTex

On 02/17/2015 03:55 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote:

Require every EBT card recipient to show up for work -- some work,
ANY work -- picking up litter, mowing lawns, painting fences,
pulling weeds, digging holes and filling them back up, babysitting
the kids of those who are out pulling weeds, supervising the litter
pickers. Can't do physical labor? Sit in your wheelchair holding
up a "People Working" sign by those who are moving rocks for their
EBT cards. We can exempt the truly disabled. Want a $300 EBT card?
Put in 40 hours of work first. Don't like it? Then get off your
butt and find a real job.
-------------------------------------------------------

You'll never see it for the same reason you don't see prison road
gangs [think cool Hand Luke] anymore.
You put all those people to work in that manner and you put a bunch
of contactors out of business. And, those contractors that get rich off
government contracts make healthy contributions to re-election campaigns.

Dave in SoTex


http://www.mcso.org/About/FAQ/pdf/Chain_Gangs.pdf


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 2/17/2015 3:55 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote:

Require every EBT card recipient to show up for work -- some work,
ANY work -- picking up litter, mowing lawns, painting fences,
pulling weeds, digging holes and filling them back up, babysitting
the kids of those who are out pulling weeds, supervising the litter
pickers. Can't do physical labor? Sit in your wheelchair holding
up a "People Working" sign by those who are moving rocks for their
EBT cards. We can exempt the truly disabled. Want a $300 EBT card?
Put in 40 hours of work first. Don't like it? Then get off your
butt and find a real job.
-------------------------------------------------------

You'll never see it for the same reason you don't see prison road
gangs [think cool Hand Luke] anymore.
You put all those people to work in that manner and you put a bunch
of contactors out of business. And, those contractors that get rich off
government contracts make healthy contributions to re-election campaigns.

I don't know of any big government contractors getting rich from picking
up litter, painting fences, pulling weeds, and babysitting? Would you
please name one or two, so I can understand who you're referring to?

I also doubt that prison road gangs ended to line the pockets of
government contractors. Do you have any evidence of that? I rather
suspect the real reason was a combination of its resemblance to slavery,
the cruel way it was often implemented, the risk of escapes, people's
increasing distaste at seeing people, even convicts, treated that way,
and civil rights lawsuits both real and threatened.

"Just Wondering" wrote:

Require every EBT card recipient to show up for work -- some
work,
ANY work -- picking up litter, mowing lawns, painting fences,
pulling weeds, digging holes and filling them back up, babysitting
the kids of those who are out pulling weeds, supervising the
litter
pickers. Can't do physical labor? Sit in your wheelchair holding
up a "People Working" sign by those who are moving rocks for their
EBT cards. We can exempt the truly disabled. Want a $300 EBT
card?
Put in 40 hours of work first. Don't like it? Then get off your
butt and find a real job.
-------------------------------------------------------
Good way to get fired when you are in some flunky management
positioin and give somebody 40 hours/week.

These days the max is 25 hours/week to avoid paying benifits.

Try getting hired at a big box store.

Lew

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:39:43 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
m:

On 2/17/2015 8:46 AM, Baxter wrote:

And the same legal situation holds - the contractor is still
responsible. You can use a bank anology too - SS puts surplus funds
into the bank, the bank MUST allow SS to withdraw those funds when it
needs/wants to.

Do you really believe that the government has surplus funds to put
into
SS? Federal taxes and SS taxes are paid to the government with one
check. The money actually goes to where ever it is needed the most but
owes countless debtors including the SS division. There is no surplus
when your owe more than your income.

-----------
For the Last Time, the Social Security Trust Fund Is Real

For the last time, the only thing in the "Social Security Trust Fund"
is a gigantic IOU that can be canceled at the whim of Congress. You
are not owed a damned thing but your children (scary thought) will
certainly pay.

Now, suppose this surplus had been invested in corporate bonds. What
exactly would that mean? It means that workers would be giving money to
corporations, who would turn around and spend it. In return, the Social
Security trust fund would receive bonds that represent promises to repay
the money later out of the company's cash flow. In effect, it gives
workers a claim on the cash flows of the company at a later date in time.
When that time comes, the company would have to pay up, which would make
it less profitable. If the company was already unprofitable, it would
make their deficit even worse.

You're more clueless than even I had suspected.

more drivel snipped

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:54:07 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
wrote:

Swingman wrote in
m:

On 2/17/2015 12:35 AM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in


We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what
should have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to
a contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he
comes back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian
vacation, but all you have to do is give him some more cash and
he'll get right with it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.

Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money
from somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him
more cash, and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some
sort of sucker who would give the contractor more money, but in the
Real World, real people call their lawyers.

Again your ignorance of the facts, and the actual law, is showing.

As I clearly stated earlier: by virtue of the Supreme Court decision
in 'Flemming v. Nestor', SCOTUS clearly states, among other things
with regard to SS, that ***there is no contractual agreement between
taxpayer and government***.

Which refers to _individual_ rights - not Trust Fund rights

See:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor

Individuals do not have a *contractual* right to SS payments. The bonds
purchased by the Trust Fund, however, ARE binding contracts. Just as
*you* would have a binding contract for any Treasury Bills that you
purchased.

Bull****. The trust find can evaporate at the whim of Congress. The
money in the "trust fund" is *not* owed to you. You have no legal
claim on it. It's complete fiction.

You're wrong ... keep digging your hole.

You're missinterpreting - why?

No, he's got you nailed.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:01:54 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/17/2015 7:21 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/17/2015 12:35 AM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in


We're talking about SS as it exists under current law, not what should
have or could have been done. Suppose you made a payment to a
contractor to add a room to your house. A few months later he comes
back to you and says he spent the money on a Hawaiian vacation, but
all you have to do is give him some more cash and he'll get right with
it. I'm sure you'd have no objections.

Nope. You have a contract. The contractor has to borrow the money from
somewhere else to finish your job - you do NOT have to give him more
cash,
and he DOES have to finish the work. Perhaps you're some sort of sucker
who would give the contractor more money, but in the Real World, real
people call their lawyers.

Again your ignorance of the facts, and the actual law, is showing.

As I clearly stated earlier: by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in
'Flemming v. Nestor', SCOTUS clearly states, among other things with
regard to SS, that ***there is no contractual agreement between taxpayer
and government***.


Because the government operates "above the law" it does not need no
stink'n contract.

A contract requires a "meeting of the minds". I have no choice. The
government has no mind.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:55:13 -0600, "Dave in Texas"
wrote:


"Just Wondering" wrote:

Require every EBT card recipient to show up for work -- some work,
ANY work -- picking up litter, mowing lawns, painting fences,
pulling weeds, digging holes and filling them back up, babysitting
the kids of those who are out pulling weeds, supervising the litter
pickers. Can't do physical labor? Sit in your wheelchair holding
up a "People Working" sign by those who are moving rocks for their
EBT cards. We can exempt the truly disabled. Want a $300 EBT card?
Put in 40 hours of work first. Don't like it? Then get off your
butt and find a real job.
-------------------------------------------------------

You'll never see it for the same reason you don't see prison road gangs
[think cool Hand Luke] anymore.

You see them around here.

You put all those people to work in that manner and you put a bunch of
contactors out of business. And, those contractors that get rich off
government contracts make healthy contributions to re-election campaigns.

How about having them do the work that American's won't do?

I believe the Texas prison system is self-supporting. Good plan.

"Just Wondering" wrote:

Require every EBT card recipient to show up for work -- some
work,
ANY work -- picking up litter, mowing lawns, painting fences,
pulling weeds, digging holes and filling them back up, babysitting
the kids of those who are out pulling weeds, supervising the litter
pickers. Can't do physical labor? Sit in your wheelchair holding
up a "People Working" sign by those who are moving rocks for their
EBT cards. We can exempt the truly disabled. Want a $300 EBT
card?
Put in 40 hours of work first. Don't like it? Then get off your
butt and find a real job.
-------------------------------------------------------

"Dave in Texas" wrote:

You'll never see it for the same reason you don't see prison road
gangs [think cool Hand Luke] anymore.
You put all those people to work in that manner and you put a
bunch of contactors out of business. And, those contractors that
get rich off government contracts make healthy contributions to
re-election campaigns.

---------------------------------------------------
Here in California, convict labor is used to fight forest fires as
ground crews
(Pick & Shovel duty).

Goats are used to clean brush from the hill sides since you almost
have to be
a billy goat to gain access to much of the brush.

"Rent-A-Goat" has become quite a business.

Lew

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:35:10 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 2/17/2015 3:55 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote:

Require every EBT card recipient to show up for work -- some work,
ANY work -- picking up litter, mowing lawns, painting fences,
pulling weeds, digging holes and filling them back up, babysitting
the kids of those who are out pulling weeds, supervising the litter
pickers. Can't do physical labor? Sit in your wheelchair holding
up a "People Working" sign by those who are moving rocks for their
EBT cards. We can exempt the truly disabled. Want a $300 EBT card?
Put in 40 hours of work first. Don't like it? Then get off your
butt and find a real job.
-------------------------------------------------------

You'll never see it for the same reason you don't see prison road
gangs [think cool Hand Luke] anymore.
You put all those people to work in that manner and you put a bunch
of contactors out of business. And, those contractors that get rich off
government contracts make healthy contributions to re-election campaigns.

I don't know of any big government contractors getting rich from picking
up litter, painting fences, pulling weeds, and babysitting? Would you
please name one or two, so I can understand who you're referring to?

I also doubt that prison road gangs ended to line the pockets of
government contractors. Do you have any evidence of that? I rather
suspect the real reason was a combination of its resemblance to slavery,
the cruel way it was often implemented, the risk of escapes, people's
increasing distaste at seeing people, even convicts, treated that way,
and civil rights lawsuits both real and threatened.

That's probably the way lefties see the world but to the prisoners, a
chance to get outside the prison walls is well worth the work involved
and it does pay - something. They're not called "trustees" for
nothing. If they escape they'll never see the outside world again
(most are murders, IIRC).

On 2/17/2015 7:43 PM, Baxter wrote:

the right-wing has been trying to cancel SS for over 50 years

I call bull**** on that claim. Put up or shut up.

On 02/18/2015 12:20 AM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

On 02/17/2015 07:59 PM, Baxter wrote:

And the Social Security Trust Fund is Public Debt.


Wrong again. The SS trust fund contains non marketable
intragovernmental debt.

----------
By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in
securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal
government.

Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and
may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment
in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding
cash.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds
are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The
government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-
issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or
other financial instruments of the Federal government.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html


Instead of more obfuscation, why not admit you're wrong in claiming that
the SS trust fund contains Public Debt?

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 2/17/2015 7:06 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Goats are used to clean brush from the hill sides since you almost
have to be
a billy goat to gain access to much of the brush.

"Rent-A-Goat" has become quite a business.

During my visits to the Texas hill country where goats abound, I've
contemplated investing in a coin operated goat wash...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 02/18/2015 07:47 AM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

On 02/18/2015 12:20 AM, Baxter wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

On 02/17/2015 07:59 PM, Baxter wrote:

And the Social Security Trust Fund is Public Debt.


Wrong again. The SS trust fund contains non marketable
intragovernmental debt.

----------
By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis,
in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the
Federal government.

Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market
and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity.
Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same
flexibility as holding cash.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust
funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S.
Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with
interest. The special- issue securities are, therefore, just as safe
as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal
government.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html


Instead of more obfuscation, why not admit you're wrong in claiming
that the SS trust fund contains Public Debt?

What part of "investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full
faith and credit of the U. S. Government" do you not understand?


The part where you claimed it was "public debt" which was the basis for
your irrelavant SCOTUS reference.




--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 2/18/2015 7:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

On 2/17/2015 7:43 PM, Baxter wrote:

the right-wing has been trying to cancel SS for over 50 years

I call bull**** on that claim. Put up or shut up.

Oh, get real. Republicans have been opposed to SS since it first came to
the US. All today's rhetoric is right out of Hoover's playbook
http://tinyurl.com/kmmmsme
See also:
http://tinyurl.com/pmr7bec
http://tinyurl.com/ldnjdys
All the same adverse claims we hear today from the right, I heard 50 years
ago.

I looked at all three sites. There's not a shred of evidence on any of
them that "the right-wing has been trying to cancel SS for over 50
years." So your claim IS bull****.

On 2/18/2015 12:32 PM, Baxter wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 2/18/2015 7:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

On 2/17/2015 7:43 PM, Baxter wrote:

the right-wing has been trying to cancel SS for over 50 years

I call bull**** on that claim. Put up or shut up.

Oh, get real. Republicans have been opposed to SS since it first
came to the US. All today's rhetoric is right out of Hoover's
playbook http://tinyurl.com/kmmmsme
See also:
http://tinyurl.com/pmr7bec
http://tinyurl.com/ldnjdys
All the same adverse claims we hear today from the right, I heard 50
years ago.

I looked at all three sites. There's not a shred of evidence on any
of them that "the right-wing has been trying to cancel SS for over 50
years." So your claim IS bull****.

------------
The 80-Year Conservative War On Social Security Is Back For More

Social Security, in more ways than one the mother of all U.S. entitlement
programs, has been the dragon that conservatives have succeeded in
slashing, but never slaying, over its 80-year history. Their opposition
has morphed from outright ideological grounds as the program was being
debated during the New Deal era to a campaign masked in careful rhetoric
once Social Security became virtually untouchable as a political animal.

But the program has never been perceived by the left as an existential
threat the way it has been by many on the right. To understand where
conservatives are now, you have to understand how they got there. The
following is derived in large part from "The Battle for Social
Security," authored by Social Security Works's co-director Nancy Altman,
and TPM's own consultations with other experts on the program.

http://tinyurl.com/jw3r7zs

See also:
http://tinyurl.com/ntu5sva

I looked at both sites. There's still not a shred of evidence on any
of them that "the right-wing has been trying to cancel SS for over 50
years." That's strikes one, two, three, and four. You're OUT!